Darwin and the Theory of Evolution/Chapter 4
CHAPTER IV
DARWIN AND THE GODS
It is a strange thing that Darwin, whose work has exerted the most profound influence on religious thought, neither wrote or said much on the subject. This was true in spite of the fact that, like most thoughtful people, he had religion often in mind, and had definite ideas regarding it. Darwin saw himself as a scientist, and a scientist only; he felt wholly at sea in matters of technical philosophy and theology. Apparently it did not occur to him that religion really had no need of high-sounding technicalities, and that a man could get quite as far by using common sense alone as by using common sense wrapped up in big words, and hollow formulæ. He knew that he lacked specialized training in fields of abstract thought, and therefore he considered his views on religion as being "of no real consequence" to anyone but himself.
That was a safe position, and perhaps a very just one, yet we are in no way obliged to adopt it. If for no other reason than to form a correct picture of the man, we should inquire as to his attitude on such subjects as gods, revelation, and teleology. Probably there is no better way to conduct this inquiry than to trace, as well as we can, the development of Darwin's opinion, from the time when he first began to analyze his belief to the time when he last stated it.
Darwin began, as did most of us, by accepting literally the English Bible, placing a child's faith in an all-powerful and all-seeing God, who could create worlds or help small boys get to school on time, just as the occasion demanded. By the time he left Edinburgh he had progressed far enough to question some things in the creed of the Church of England, and this caused some hesitation when his father urged him to go to Cambridge and become a preacher. But even then he did not question a word of the Bible, so that when he found an admirably written book, which showed, quite skillfully, that the dogmas of the church also were the "everlasting truths" of Christianity, his doubts were settled. That placid orthodoxy lasted almost throughout the Beagle voyage; the young man even got himself laughed at by the ship's officers for quoting the Bible as infallible evidence in argument.
But the large number of things seen on the world-trip could not fail to undermine orthodox faith, and particularly the orthodox faith of a young man fond of thinking things out for himself. Less than three years after his return to England he had come to the conclusion that the Old Testament was no more reliable than the sacred books of the Hindus. That admission brought another flood of doubts, this time about the New Testament. If there was a god, interested in the good of the Hindus, would he make a new revelation and permit it to be linked up with the old Hindu gods and heroes, as the revelation of Jesus is connected with the Old Testament and its obvious falsehoods. Would the bearer of this new revelation believe in those ancient mythological characters? Such a condition was incredible, and so Christianity as well as Judaism went by the board.
"By further reflecting," says Darwin in his autobiography, "that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;[1] by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me.
"But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidences which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.
"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. . . .[2]
Darwin then admits, and even goes out of his way to prove that pleasure exceeds suffering in the living world. Yet he does not underestimate the role of pain in life; his objection is to a teleological interpretation of the universality of suffering. "Some," he says, "attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.
"At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.
"Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me) to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. . . . . This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidences of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.
"With respect to immortality, nothing shows me (so clearly) how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consideration of the view . . . . that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun, and thus gives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful."
It is worthy of note, however, that Darwin did not let even this feeling, or prejudice; he wished he could believe in immortality, rather envied those who could, but maintained his own doubt. The same is true of his attitude on the problem of conceiving the universe, or the great group of universes, as the result of purely impersonal, unintelligent, natural forces. "When thus reflecting," he says, "I feel compelled to look for a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I remember, when I wrote the 'Origin of Species'; and it has since that time, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?
"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Such is Darwin's position with relation to the problem of the existence or non-existence of a god. He flatly denies the existence of a personal deity, so far as his belief or knowledge goes. Nor does he have any desire to reconcile science and any form of religion, even that of his own country. "Science and Christ[3] have nothing to do with each other, except in so far as the habit of scientific investigation makes a man cautious about accepting any proofs. As far as I am concerned I do not believe that any revelation has ever been made with regard to a future life; every one must draw his own conclusions from vague and contradictory probabilities."
- ↑ It is interesting to note how the later researches in this field have proved that the gospels were not written in Jesus' time. On the other hand, the most recent studies seem to have established the fact that Jesus (probably named Joshua) did live,—which appears to be questioned by Darwin in the next paragraph. The best discussion of this problem is to be found in Professor Case's book, The Historicity of Jesus, published by the University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- ↑ This same argument of design in evolution, and in all the universe, for that matter, is very popular today, particularly among naturalists and theologians who manage to believe in Jehovah and Darwin at the same time, and make a reconciliation of their beliefs. It is essentially a religious argument, or conception, and assumes a purpose,—a divinely guided, and good purpose in all things. One of the greatest defects of its followers is that they think nothing can be good, or valuable, or progressive, unless planned for. It is this error which leads them into such absurd positions as that of Dr. Edwin Grant Conklin, a famous evolutionist, when he says: "If a man is the result of unintelligent forces and processes; … if men are born by millions only to be swept away by flood, famine, pestilence, and war; if they live and die like the beasts and leave only their bones and implements behind; if suffering and struggle are purposeless and lead to nothing—if this really were the teaching of evolution, then certainly it would be true that evolution debases man and destroys the hopes of mankind. But this is not true and it is not the teaching of evolution, but rather of pessimism and atheism.
"The blighting influence of atheism (with which Dr. Conklin seems to include agnosticism) is shown in just such conclusions as those mentioned, for it substitutes blind chance and necessity for plan and purpose, both in nature and in human life. If there is no teleology in nature, the course of evolution leading to man and to consciousness is the result of blind and blundering accident. If there is no purpose or value in human labor and suffering, life is not worth living."
It is such rhetorical generalizations as this, made by men who plainly know next to nothing about either atheism or agnosticism; who mistake prejudice for fact; who set up scarecrows of their own half superstitious imaginations for the joy of shooting them down; who even appear unable to separate two into one and one,—it is such generalizations, broadcasted from public platforms and university chairs, that help make clear thinking almost an impossibility in college "educated" circles. Indeed, those men almost make us admit the truth of their bugaboo picture as to the worthlessness of humanity, and agree with another biologist who has said that. "The evolution of consciousness is the greatest blunder in the universe." Surely no earthworm would tie himself into such a knot as does Dr. Conklin—and then be proud of it. C.L.F.
- ↑ In modern usage, probably the equivalent of Jesus. Among the real critics of religion great care is being taken to use "Jesus" only as applying to the man; "Christ" is restricted to the religious legend and office which is associated with him. Thus one may believe thoroughly in the existence of Jesus while he disbelieves just as thoroughly in the existence of a Christ.